@Cristobell wrote:Can anyone truly be protected? Yesterday we saw the arrest of one of Cameron's close aides and today we see the sensational front pages. We have seen Prime Ministers called to give public accounts of their actions and the dramatic scenes of a Media Mogul and one of the World's most powerful men placed under the public microscope. As we discuss the McCann case, Rebekah Brooks, close friend of David Cameron and Tony Blair is in the dock on multiple charges, as to is Andy Coulson, another close aide of DC's.

What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

I`ve wondered that Cristobel, but we`ll have to see whether their punishment is harsh enough to fit their crimes - I doubt RB or AC will go to jail like the other journos as they are friends of DC.

You say "can anyone truly be protected" - I say yes, the royal family. I realise that Prince Harry has been exposed for dressing up as a Nazi and Prince Charles`s phone tapped to hear him wishing to be one of Camilla`s tampax, but if there was something the public could never forgive, yes, it would be covered up.

@Cristobell wrote:Can anyone truly be protected? Yesterday we saw the arrest of one of Cameron's close aides and today we see the sensational front pages. We have seen Prime Ministers called to give public accounts of their actions and the dramatic scenes of a Media Mogul and one of the World's most powerful men placed under the public microscope. As we discuss the McCann case, Rebekah Brooks, close friend of David Cameron and Tony Blair is in the dock on multiple charges, as to is Andy Coulson, another close aide of DC's.

What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

That is the 6 million dollar question. Whether you believe whitewash or not, one thing we do know the UK went to enormous lengths to protect them.

If somebody could get to the bottom of that I believe the case could be solved.

@Cristobell wrote:What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

"Thrown to the wolves" is a good choice of expression. Not saying he's innocent by any means but, being totally honest, the claims being made leave me somewhat incredulous. Could he really be that stupid?

Still, his life is now effectively over, having been accused of the only crime where suspicion is proof, and accusation is conviction.

@Cristobell wrote:What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

"Thrown to the wolves" is a good choice of expression. Not saying he's innocent by any means but, being totally honest, the claims being made leave me somewhat incredulous. Could he really be that stupid?

Still, his life is now effectively over, having been accused of the only crime where suspicion is proof, and accusation is conviction.

I agree. I haven't read about the case yet, so cannot comment, but I do worry sometimes that paedophilia is used as a modern form of witch hunting - a quick read up of Operation Ore led by Jim Gamble, would send chills through your spine. Many lives were ended there, over 30 through suicide.

@Cristobell wrote:What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

"Thrown to the wolves" is a good choice of expression. Not saying he's innocent by any means but, being totally honest, the claims being made leave me somewhat incredulous. Could he really be that stupid?

Still, his life is now effectively over, having been accused of the only crime where suspicion is proof, and accusation is conviction.

All I will say is question everything. If nothing else, this case has taught me that what we are fed may well be some distance from the truth. Expediency trumps everything when stakes are high.

@Cristobell wrote:What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

"Thrown to the wolves" is a good choice of expression. Not saying he's innocent by any means but, being totally honest, the claims being made leave me somewhat incredulous. Could he really be that stupid?

Still, his life is now effectively over, having been accused of the only crime where suspicion is proof, and accusation is conviction.

All I will say is question everything. If nothing else, this case has taught me that what we are fed may well be some distance from the truth. Expediency trumps everything when stakes are high.

Apropos of nothing, does anybody think it's possible that the reason Clarence is so keen to ally himself to the Conservative party - even going so far as to stand for MP - is because he has prior knowledge that the other side are soon going to be dealt a fatal blow?

@Cristobell wrote:What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

"Thrown to the wolves" is a good choice of expression. Not saying he's innocent by any means but, being totally honest, the claims being made leave me somewhat incredulous. Could he really be that stupid?

Still, his life is now effectively over, having been accused of the only crime where suspicion is proof, and accusation is conviction.

All I will say is question everything. If nothing else, this case has taught me that what we are fed may well be some distance from the truth. Expediency trumps everything when stakes are high.

Apropos of nothing, does anybody think it's possible that the reason Clarence is so keen to ally himself to the Conservative party - even going so far as to stand for MP - is because he has prior knowledge that the other side are soon going to be dealt a fatal blow?

Hmm. Interesting thought. I'm just surprised he wants to be a common or garden constituency MP of any political hue after the heady heights of spinmeister general. Perhaps he wants Parliamentary Privilege to get a few things off his chest!

@Cristobell wrote:What I am struggling to say, is why on earth would the government and the authorities go to such an enormous amount of trouble to cover up the actions of two mediocre doctors from the midlands, when even close personal friends of the Prime Minister have been thrown to the wolves?

"Thrown to the wolves" is a good choice of expression. Not saying he's innocent by any means but, being totally honest, the claims being made leave me somewhat incredulous. Could he really be that stupid?

Still, his life is now effectively over, having been accused of the only crime where suspicion is proof, and accusation is conviction.

All I will say is question everything. If nothing else, this case has taught me that what we are fed may well be some distance from the truth. Expediency trumps everything when stakes are high.

Apropos of nothing, does anybody think it's possible that the reason Clarence is so keen to ally himself to the Conservative party - even going so far as to stand for MP - is because he has prior knowledge that the other side are soon going to be dealt a fatal blow?

I think that CM is going to look out for himself and ensure that he has a 'job'. He has to keep one step ahead. He probably is well aware that his job with the MC Canns is likely to be ending in the fairly imminent future so of course he will now be looking for a new way ahead. The Conservatives will use his best talents and he may be suitable for Brighton - or at least they have nothing to lose by having him fight for that seat. Whatever, CM 's aim is to keep himself in a fairly high profile position on the side of the main players. He loves being in the know, and thinking he has some influence - he wont want to lose that now. Yes I 'm sure he know that the Mc Canns are not in a good position and he will be starting to separate himslef from them. Like us, he may not be clear on exactly what is going to happen with the SY investigation.

Also, Im 100% certain this is not about the protection of 2 Rothley doctors. This is about the protection or not of highly influential business people and their organisation out in Portugal. This is about the protection of people who hold strategic positions, can influence voting in the UK - whether to reveal them or not is not an easy decision for DC. The doctors are nobodies and if it were just their livelihood at stake - this would have been resolved several years ago. This is about sex, business, reputations - and a little girl's death just happened to cause an inconvenience in case it brought those things to the public's attention. (IMO).

RO, GM, MO, DP are all consultants. All apart from GM gt their medical degrees at Uni of Leicester. Friends for a long time - lots of loyalty. But again this is not about protecting the TAPAS 9 - its about protecting what they were beginning to be a part of. (IMO)

There are many on this forum, no doubt in good faith, who have put forward reasons for Operation Grange not being a cover up, futile exercise etc, others placing interpretations on the pearls of wisdom offered by its lead investigator, Inspector Redwood, alas all the evidence thus far points in the opposite direction. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,-------

Apart from ignoring what little tangible evidence there is, chasing fictitious paedophiles around the world, checking out 30 million phone records, ignoring the most obvious suspects etc. etc. the most compelling indication for me is the 'advanced timeline' theory. I'm sure others noticed the emphasis that our intrepid inspector put on his words 'There was a window of opportunity' when announcing his new time line theory, thereby intimating that prior to this amazing revelation , there wasn't, ie, the McCann's original time line made an abduction all but a physical impossibility.

By advancing the time line, he creates a 'window of opportunity', albeit small, but nevertheless a remote possibility. Exactly the type of strategy a defence lawyer would put forward to create reasonable doubt. How many times has anyone heard of a police officer publicly setting out to create doubt in the guilt of his main suspects in an ongoing investigation. Did anyone hear Nipper Read voicing any doubts when feeling the collars of the Kray twins in the 1960's, did anyone hear the old grey fox, Bert Wickstead, raising doubts about the guilt of the Tibbs family in the 1970's. I very much doubt whether Pat Adams brother, Terry, received such doubt when busted under the POCA 2003 in 2004. The Met. Police didn't have any qualms about gaining illegal entry to his premises and bugging his bedroom, tapping his phone etc. I think it cost the taxpayers somewhere in the region of £100,000 to have these tapes transcribed when requested by the defence.

My take on this is that the greatest damage done to both the McCanns and the British gov. was the Portugese police releasing their complete files for the world and his wife to paw over, they didn't expect that. Can anyone imagine in their wildest fantasy, the British authorities doing this, why a Met. police officer wouldn't even tell you the time if asked, which incidentally was their original job(I jest) IMO, Operation Grange may not necessarily have been set up as a cover up/whitewash, but more likely was intended as a damage limitation exercise to counteract the catastrophe caused by the release of the Portugese police files, perhaps more affectionately known as the McCann files.

@diatribe wrote:There are many on this forum, no doubt in good faith, who have put forward reasons for Operation Grange not being a cover up, futile exercise etc, others placing interpretations on the pearls of wisdom offered by its lead investigator, Inspector Redwood, alas all the evidence thus far points in the opposite direction. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,-------

Apart from ignoring what little tangible evidence there is, chasing fictitious paedophiles around the world, checking out 30 million phone records, ignoring the most obvious suspects etc. etc. the most compelling indication for me is the 'advanced timeline' theory. I'm sure others noticed the emphasis that our intrepid inspector put on his words 'There was a window of opportunity' when announcing his new time line theory, thereby intimating that prior to this amazing revelation , there wasn't, ie, the McCann's original time line was all but a physical impossibility.

By advancing the time line, he creates a 'window of opportunity', albeit small, but nevertheless a remote possibility. Exactly the type of strategy a defence lawyer would put forward to create reasonable doubt. How many times has anyone heard of a police officer publicly setting out to create doubt in the guilt of his main suspects in an ongoing investigation. Did anyone hear Nipper Read voicing any doubts when feeling the collars of the Kray twins in the 1960's, did anyone hear the old grey fox, Bert Wickstead, raising doubts about the guilt of the Tibbs family in the 1970's. I very much doubt whether Pat Adams brother, Terry, received such doubt when busted under the POCA 2003 in 2004. The Met. Police didn't have any qualms about gaining illegal entry to his premises and bugging his bedroom, tapping his phone etc. I think it cost the taxpayers somewhere in the region of £100,000 to have these tapes transcribed when requested by the defence.

My take on this is that the greatest damage done to both the McCanns and the British gov. was the Portugese police releasing their complete files for the world and his wife to paw over, they didn't expect that. Can anyone imagine in their wildest fantasy, the British authorities doing this, why a Met. police officer wouldn't even tell you the time if asked, which incidentally was their original job(I jest) IMO, Operation Grange may not necessarily have been set up as a cover up/whitewash, but more likely was intended as a damage limitation exercise to counteract the catastrophe caused by the release of the Portugese police files, perhaps more affectionately known as the McCann files.

But by advancing the timeline Mr Redwood also removes GMs perfect alibi, of standing in the street talking to JW at the same time as an egg with legs makes off with his daughter.

But by advancing the timeline Mr Redwood also removes GMs perfect alibi, of standing in the street talking to JW at the same time as an egg with legs makes off with his daughter.

There was never any alibi there, Dante, no-one other than the retarded under 5 Sun readers believed Tanner's Eggman. Her vision extraordinaire was dispensed with by the PJ at a very early stage of the proceedings. Lets have it right, would you want Jane Tanner as your alibi witness in a criminal trial, why the the entire court contingency would require raised umbrellas to combat her outburst of phoney tears.

In any event, even if she were a credible witness, she stated that she never saw our veritable Gerry talking to his tennis buddy in the street.

@diatribe wrote:There was never any alibi there, Dante, no-one other than the retarded under 5 Sun readers believed Tanner's Eggman. Her vision extraordinaire was dispensed with by the PJ at a very early stage of the proceedings. Lets have it right, would you want Jane Tanner as your alibi witness in a criminal trial, why the the entire court contingency would require raised umbrellas to combat her outburst of phoney tears.

In any event, even if she were a credible witness, she stated that she never saw our veritable Gerry talking to his tennis buddy in the street.

However, the McCanns still insist on Tannerman. Are they deliberately messing up this whitewash?

However, the McCanns still insist on Tannerman. Are they deliberately messing up this whitewash?

As previously stated, I prefer to call it a damage limitations exercise. Again I ask the question, if push came to shove, would you want Jane Tanner as your alibi witness at a criminal trial, particularly in the vein that she couldn't alibi you anyway

However, the McCanns still insist on Tannerman. Are they deliberately messing up this whitewash?

As previously stated, I prefer to call it a damage limitations exercise. Again I ask the question, if push came to shove, would you want Jane Tanner as your alibi witness at a criminal trial, particularly in the vein that she couldn't alibi you anyway

If this is a whitewash, what criminal trial are you talking about?

Damage limitation, really? What on earth for? I can't see any earthly reason why the McCanns would contradict Scotland Yard if they're working to clear them.

But by advancing the timeline Mr Redwood also removes GMs perfect alibi, of standing in the street talking to JW at the same time as an egg with legs makes off with his daughter.

There was never any alibi there, Dante, no-one other than the retarded under 5 Sun readers believed Tanner's Eggman. Her vision extraordinaire was dispensed with by the PJ at a very early stage of the proceedings. Lets have it right, would you want Jane Tanner as your alibi witness in a criminal trial, why the the entire court contingency would require raised umbrellas to combat her outburst of phoney tears.

In any event, even if she were a credible witness, she stated that she never saw our veritable Gerry talking to his tennis buddy in the street.

JT did state that she saw GM and JW in the street. It was them that said they didn't see her Diatribe.The alibi I meant was JW, as being independent from T9.Which is why they want to hang on to the eggman, and that timeline.

@diatribe wrote:the most compelling indication for me is the 'advanced timeline' theory. (...)

By advancing the time line, he creates a 'window of opportunity', albeit small, but nevertheless a remote possibility. Exactly the type of strategy a defence lawyer would put forward to create reasonable doubt.

If there is enough evidence that the parents raised the alarm before this window of opportunity, advancing the timeline to coincide with the parents' original statements to the PJ claims to remove any doubt about the abduction having never happened.

The only potential one possible ie. in the event that the PJ come up with some tangible evidence to warrant instituting extradition proceedings against the McCanns with the intention of prosecuting them in Portugal. What on earth has any British 'Whitewash' got to do with prosecuting the McCanns, that's not the name of the game. The only objective for the Met. police intervention is to make it more difficult for the Portugese to mount a prosecution. Apples and oranges, diametrically opposed goals.

Damage limitation, really? What on earth for? I can't see any earthly reason why the McCanns would contradict Scotland Yard if they're working to clear them.

Au contraire, far from contradicting them, from all accounts I have read on this forum and elsewhere , the McCanns are very happy with the direction in which the Met. police are advancing their enquiries.

@diatribe wrote:The only potential one possible ie. in the event that the PJ come up with some tangible evidence to warrant instituting extradition proceedings against the McCanns with the intention of prosecuting them in Portugal. What on earth has any British 'Whitewash' got to do with prosecuting the McCanns, that's not the name of the game. The only objective for the Met. police intervention is to make it more difficult for the Portugese to mount a prosecution. Apples and oranges, diametrically opposed goals.[/b]

OK, so if Scotland Yard's white-wash has advanced the window of opportunity, what happens if the Portuguese produce witnesses stating that the alarm was raised before this time? I'd like to know how this helps the McCanns defend against a prosecution. On the contrary, it makes things a hell of a lot worse for them.

And if Scotland Yard are working to defeat a prosecution brought by the Portuguese, why are the two forces having meetings? Why don't the PJ tell SY to f*** off?

MarcoG wrote:If there is enough evidence that the parents raised the alarm before this window of opportunity, advancing the timeline to coincide with the parents' original statements to the PJ claims to remove any doubt about the abduction having never happened.

But is there, Marco, I thought the evidence was that Kate McCann raised the alarm at circa 10.pm. Redwood's timeline is only advanced beyond 9.15 or thereabouts which could still coincide with her whooshing and shouting at 10 pm. If there was any serious attempt to make a case , he wouldn't be talking about advancing timelines, he'd be talking about retarding them.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...

Lord Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, retired Met Commissioner: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."